Uncoloured phono cartridges

[Sal1950]

I've had that happen with a dealer checking my cart, said it was worn but not worn out, and he knew it was costing him a £1k replacement sale.

Naw, he was just a very smart salesman.. He placed the impression of honesty in your head, let you know your needle was on it's way out, and almost guaranteed him the sale after that seed of worry he placed there in your mind became a nagging you couldn't ignore any longer. LOL

 

[Angsty]

Alas I think Shure only makes DJ cartridges now.

Shure exited the phono cartridge business altogether a couple of years ago. A Shure M97xE now sells for 3x in the NOS market what they cost in 2017.

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/shure-exits-phono-cartridge-business-0

 

[Angsty]

Now there's a whole 'nother topic right there: What exactly does one get when changing from bonded to nude-mounted styli, or different stylus shapes? In the case of Ortofon 2M Red and Blue, there's a $100 price difference to upgrade from bonded- to nude-mounted!

Lots available on this topic; the Soundsmith website has great info. It costs more to produce a nude elliptical stylus than a bonded elliptical stylus. The principal difference in the 2M is lower moving mass; I have the 2M Blue. Often the cost of the stylus and cantilever can represent more than 80% of the cost of a MM cartridge.

In my opinion, it’s best to think of stylus/cartridge manufacture as more akin to jewelry manufacture than to mass manufacture.

 

[manisandher]

I have a DL103 with Expert Stylus's sapphire cantilever and paratrace tip, mounted on the latest Townshend Excalibur arm (with front damping trough). Here's what my vinyl rip looks like compared to the 16/44.1 download of the same music:

On the viny rip, there seems to be some attenuation below 50 Hz, and a bit of a rise above 15 kHz, but otherwise, the plots look remarkably similar. The vinyl rip sounds great.

Apart from my Decca Reference, I don't think I'll ever bother with any other cartridge other than an Expert Stylus DL103/SP. And at less than UKP 500, I think it's very good value for money. (But as others have already mentioned, you need the 'right' arm for it.)

Mani.

 

[anmpr1]

When I got in to the hobby, it was easy to choose. Each manufacturer had a three tier line up (with variations in each level). Take Shure as an example. Top tier was the V-15. Then the M91 mid-range. Finally, the M44 at the lower end.

Sometimes all you needed to do was upgrade the diamond. Ortofon had the OM, which was available as the ball point pen Pro S; the 10, 20, 30, and 40. All the same except stylus shape. So it was easy to upgrade, and you could reasonably expect some practical improvement between a lower level 10 and a higher end 40.

Again, the Japanese MC scene changed all that. Now, who knows what the differences are? Look at the Koetsu line. 15 cartridges, all wrapped in a different exotic wood or semi-precious stone. I'm sure someone knows, but I have no idea about the difference between, say, a Jade Platinum or an Onyx Platinum model. But at those prices, I guess you'll want one of each. LOL

 

[Mnyb]

I also had mc carts ortofon mc20 and mc30 and XYZ and MM ortofon OM and Grado when I had a working turntable .

But is there any real reason to why MC should be better ? Seems that it’s also about fashion and snobbery.

On paper many MM tracks better and the noise penalty in the amplifier for using an MC is a factor ?

 

[anmpr1]

But is there any real reason to why MC should be better ? Seems that it’s also about fashion and snobbery.

Perhaps lower moving mass of the stylus/cantilever assembly? Possibly better diamond orientation (i.e., overall QC in these limited production items).

Mitch Cotter claimed that the MC design is less prone to axial induced FM distortion because the cantilever is typically fixed by a wire that doesn't allow for the sort of axial motion possible in some MM designs. I don't know that that has ever been measured or otherwise proved.

Once you get to a certain price point I think it's simply a matter of what appeals to you. And these days it's not uncommon for a top of the line MM cartridge to sell for a Grover Cleveland. I see that Joe Grado's kid is selling his top of the line MI for six large.

 

[sergeauckland]

I also had mc carts ortofon mc20 and mc30 and XYZ and MM ortofon OM and Grado when I had a working turntable .

But is there any real reason to why MC should be better ? Seems that it’s also about fashion and snobbery.

On paper many MM tracks better and the noise penalty in the amplifier for using an MC is a factor ?

There are a few reasons why a low-output MC should be better than an MM.

1) Lower moving mass as small coils close to the pivot point have less moving mass than two magnets.
2) Far lower impedance and tiny amount of inductance make an MC cartridge pretty much immune to loading differences.
3) Far lower impedance results in less self-noise, although this relies on the step-up device being well designed for low noise.

As to tracking, yes the best MMs track better than the best MCs, but these days, decent MCs track well enough for almost all LPs.

Like most people, I started off with MMs, first Goldring, then a succession of Shure V15s (still have a V15V with SAS stylus) but have gone over to MCs on my main turntables mostly for reasons of consistency regarding loading. It's hard to know what a MM does without measuring the frequency response, for each individual combination of arm wiring and phono stage input, whilst with MCs, they pretty much are what they are.

As to subjective sound, both MCs and MMs are capable of good results, it's just a lot easier to achieve that with MCs than MMs.

S.

 

[watchnerd]

I also had mc carts ortofon mc20 and mc30 and XYZ and MM ortofon OM and Grado when I had a working turntable .

But is there any real reason to why MC should be better ? Seems that it’s also about fashion and snobbery.

On paper many MM tracks better and the noise penalty in the amplifier for using an MC is a factor ?

Lower inductance.

 

[watchnerd]

And these days it's not uncommon for a top of the line MM cartridge to sell for a Grover Cleveland. I see that Joe Grado's kid is selling his top of the line MI for six large.

My MI Nagaoka MP-500 sells for more than my DL-103, AT33 Mono, AT33EV, and AT33SA MCs.

 

[Mnyb]

Thankyou, the low inductance and less finicky loading sounds compelling also the lower mass

 

[watchnerd]

In other words, they are the Audio Quest of the cartridge world.

More like Nordost.

AudioQuest has some "budget" offerings. Koetsu has no cheap carts.

 

[anmpr1]

In other words, they are the Audio Quest of the cartridge world.

I wouldn't exactly say that. In fact, I'll admit that the best analog sound I ever heard was with a Koetsu cartridge. Maybe it was just my expectation, and desire at the time. Who knows?

What you get with a Koetsu (or other like it) is obviously good sound. But there is more. There is pride of ownership from the tradition of fabled craftsman, Yoshiaki Sugano ; a visually nice looking product; the idea of exclusivity--belonging to an elite 'club' as it were; possibly a good relationship with a dealer which could result in something beneficial down the road. Whether that is worth the price of entry, is a personal decision.

As I type I'm listening to a mono LP of Walter Gieseking playing a Mozart piano sonata. Garrard Z-100 with Pickering XV-15 1200e (Stanton 681ee) cartridge. I'm quite happy. Would I be happier with a Koetsu? Would I enjoy Mozart more? I'm a music lover, so maybe not. On the other hand, if you gave me a Koetsu I'd be happy about that!

 

[Soniclife]

Naw, he was just a very smart salesman.. He placed the impression of honesty in your head, let you know your needle was on it's way out, and almost guaranteed him the sale after that seed of worry he placed there in your mind became a nagging you couldn't ignore any longer. LOL

Well he did get the sale eventually .
That was probably the only cart I ever truly heard go off at the end of it's life, and it was sudden and bad when it did. After he took it off to check it, he cleaned it and remounted it, we listened it to it, it was better than when I took it in. He really wasn't a proper salesman, I don't know how he stayed in business, especially as the speakers he stocked, that he loved, were all terrible.

 

[mhardy6647]

Interestingly, I have an AQ (Audioquest, that is) branded MC phono cartridge here Dump find, sans cantilever Not sure who made it for AQ. It is a nice lookin' cartridge.
I keep -- kinda, sorta -- meaning to get it retipped... some day...

 

[anmpr1]

There are a few reasons why a low-output MC should be better than an MM.

3) Far lower impedance results in less self-noise, although this relies on the step-up device being well designed for low noise.

As to subjective sound, both MCs and MMs are capable of good results, it's just a lot easier to achieve that with MCs than MMs.

3) The question of whether to transform current or amplify voltage has always been a root argument among MC aficionados. To the point that the former group sometimes offered transformers designed specifically for individual cartridges. And none of them were 'affordable'.

One gets to the point that attempting to eek out that last bit of sonic perfection from a plastic pancake becomes almost an exercise in ridiculousness. At least that was how it was with me. That is why I can be happy with 50 year old hardware playing 60 year old software.

With analog it's all about trade-offs. Perhaps there are too many trade-offs with records and record playing. That it is still an active issue is somewhat amazing, when you think about it.

 

[anmpr1]

Interestingly, I have an AQ (Audioquest, that is) branded MC phono cartridge here Not sure who made it for AQ.

In the beginning, the Japanese MC scene exploded here in the US. AQ, Sumiko, Monster Cable, and many others had OEM cartridges made to order. Even the 'big guys'--Mark Levinson, Krell, McIntosh put their name on special order MC products. My guess is that a lot of them, maybe most of them, came from the same suppliers. Like the old Dragnet television series, the names were changed to protect the innocent.

 

[JeffS7444]

"Back in the day", I wish I had tried Micro Acoustics's piezo cartridges as they would seem to solve a lot of problems regarding cartridge loading:
http://roger-russell.com/sonopg/micropg.htm
And they could be had for a good deal less money than Sao Win's strain gauge cartridge.

A word to the wise: If you've got a stash of dead or worn cartridges, or even the fancy boxes they came in, they may be worth money! I cringe at the memory of someone cutting open a broken Mark Levinson ML-C1, as they might as well have burnt a couple of $100 bills. IIRC I was paid about $175 for a Fidelity Research MC201 with bent cantilever (potentially rebuildable) and maybe $75 for the solid oak box which had once housed the aforementioned ML-C1. Too bad that cartridges with jewel cantilevers like the Dynavector Ruby/DV23R apparently can't be retipped.

 

[MattHooper]

Sure, it's called a CD player.

Ha, yes indeed!

My totally unscientific and non-technical method for adjusting my turntable arm/cartridge settings was to stop once it sounded as close to my digital system as possible (using the a CD and excellent vinyl version that came from the same masters).

 

[LTig]

There are a few reasons why a low-output MC should be better than an MM.

1) Lower moving mass as small coils close to the pivot point have less moving mass than two magnets.
2) Far lower impedance and tiny amount of inductance make an MC cartridge pretty much immune to loading differences.
3) Far lower impedance results in less self-noise, although this relies on the step-up device being well designed for low noise.

Yep. IMV the most important factor is (1). The lower mass means that the recovery time of the system to scratches and dust is shorter, leading to a quiet tick instead of a loud tock. This was the first thing I noted when I switched from MM to MC.

Of course a preamp with high headroom and low noise helps. I use a DIY (self designed, self built) MC phono preamp with two stages, currently using an AD797 (big thank you to member @scott wurcer who designed it) in stage 1 and an LME 49710 in stage 2 (original opamps were LT1028 and OPA134 in 1997). If I crank up the volume as loud as I can handle and lift the arm there is no noise or hum audibble at the LP. Lowering the arm the residual noise of even the best vinyl is certainly audible, so the preamp is good enough for me.